Legal Opinion

Weinheimer v. Hutzler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 9, 1932PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

We find no substantial error in the judgments appealed from except in respect to the-provisions adjudging recovery for any deficiency remaining after sale. The evidence was sufficient to warrant an inference that the materials were furnished and the labor performed with the “ consent ” of the owner within the meaning of section 3 of the Lien Law. (Pope v. Heckscher, 109 App. Div. 495; affd., 190 N. Y. 508; National Wall Paper Co. v. Sire, 163 id. 131.) But personal liability is another matter. Evidence which warrants an inference of consent sufficient to give a lien is not necessarily…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schwartz Company, Inc. v. . Aimwell Company, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. Schwartz & Co. v. Aimwell Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  3. Pope v. HeckscherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
  4. Pope v. . HeckscherNew York Court of Appeals · 1907

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Noce v. KaufmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
  2. Adams Engineering Co. v. MenowitzNew York Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Herkimer County Indus. Dev. Agency v. Village of HerkimerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API